"So instead of the city paying for there own legal fees , they plan to cover it with my taxes $"
I've heard some really silly things stated on the Advocate but this is one of the top one.
The City's money IS your tax dollarsHello McFly!
Hey Dude,The current battle is not about whether something is needed. (It is not needed now.) The battle is not about the money being spent. (This new $20 million is but a drop in the total huge debt created in the last eight years.) The current battle is not about honesty and being upfront. (Half truths and sly of hand has been the hallmark of this Council.)
The current battle is shoving a Waste Water plant down a neighborhood's throat. Then saying you will not even know it is there. And by the way, Dude, I saw the TCEQ permit the city submitted. It was less than complete and accurate. That is probably the biggest reason the contested case hearing is being allowed today.
You are correct about the 75/90 capacity rule. Then why didn't the city put that on their permit application for justification to build a new plant?
Please look at the comments from Mr. Short in city minutes from December 1, 2009.
The issue today is on spending money for this site. Had the city gone elsewhere, the plant would already be under construction even if we don't need it. The TCEQ executive director even said as much: that the city was building a new plant because they wanted to and not because of the capacity rule.
Mr. Short has said since late 2004 and early 2005, when the regional plant exceeded 75 percent, the plant has never been over 75 percent since that time.
Today its about the money for legal expenses. Eventually we will get back to the need for the plant.
And some one other than the city can attest that the technology does not cause a nuisance order or noise. Or will the city put a $20 million assurance bond to ensure the plant will never smell?
I can't remember exactly, but I think the 75% thing was a factor. But I also think we achieved the 75% for a very short period of time, and not consistently. Seems like this deal was goofed from the get-go.
I'd like to request that my water rates not be affected by any decision made by the city in this particular matter. Why should I be penalized because the city acted in haste in this matter?
Perhaps since the Advocate is fond of doing time-lines to chronicle events, they could do one on this matter.
Instead trying to inflame the sitiuation with inaccurate statements you could have spent, oh 27 seconds and found the informtion Lynn Short was saying is true. I went to TCEQ's website and found out about the 75% rule. There is also a 90% rule too, but you did not know that because you failed to do some homework.
Info from TCEQ.
Under the current rule, whenever a domestic wastewater treatment plant reaches 75 percent of thepermitted daily average flow for three consecutive months, the permittee is required to initiateengineering and financial planning for expansion and/or upgrading of the treatment plant and/orcollection facilities. Whenever flows at a domestic wastewater treatment plant reach 90 percent of thepermitted daily average flow for three consecutive months, the permittee is required to obtainauthorization from the commission to commence construction of the necessary additional treatment.
Dale/Emett and others. If you do not believe the info I have posted, you can google the information under TCEQ. The City has been upfront and Dale/Emett want to throw wrenches into the fray. Dale/Emett have you even visited another modern plant that employs odor control.Apparently not, becuase then you would not have any arguments. I am not a Water or waste water employee, I am not on Council or affiliated with the engineering firm. I am someone that has been following this mostly through City TV and the paper.
Let me recall. Why do we need the treatment plant now? Lynn Short said because they exceeded the 75% rule for three months once. Did the EPA or TCEQ say they needed it. Nope. So, the City doesn't need it. Mr Armstrong said it was needed because of upcoming expansive growth. When will that be? Don't know.
So why did they decide to build it at the third "best" location? Because the old City Manager used his discretion to pay a $25,000 option fee for that land. Oh, he did it without instruction from his supervisor? I doubt that. And after the money was spent Mr Armstrong did not want to waste the money.
Did the Council know that the neighbors were upset? Yes. Were they concerned? Nope. Those folks live on the other side of the tracks.
So according to the article, the neighbors should not be fighting to stop this thing. I do not know if the quote is correct, but the City Attorney almost notes the neighbors may be asked to pay the cities' attorney fees. Nice way to threaten the neighbors.
Why is it that the neighbors have an attorney which is costing them one-fifth the amount the city is spending? Sounds like the good citizens of Victoria are getting soaked.
Remember this on May 12th. The city will threaten even nuns if they get in the way of progress. Your city taxes are among the highest in the State. Your city officials have $125,000 just sitting around to hire an attorney firm and "experts" at the drop of a hat. Some members of the City Council will waste your money on just about anything and then say they are fiscal conservatives. Remember that on May 12th.
Victoria citizens should ask the city why such concerns over legal costs now over the proposed sewer plant? Why paying 3 times ($375,000.00) more for the land was not a concern or hiring CDM, the engineering firm from Austin ($??), to submit a flawed new wastewater plant permit application, that triggered the contested case hearing, was not a concern?
Why is not a concern that at every step in this process going back to the public hearing July 21, 2011, at the Victoria Community Center, the TCEQ Commissioners' meeting in Austin, on January 25, 2012, and the SOAH preliminary contested case hearing on April 4, 2012, the city has been spending money but are no closer to obtaining their permit since December 29, 2009, when the city council voted 4 to 2 and 1 abstention to buy the land?
Why did the city spend $12,601.00 for an archeological survey, after they bought the land for the new sewer plant?
Why were all these expenditures not city concerns of spending money at taxpayers' expense?
Why did the TCEQ executive director, the TCEQ Office of Public Interests Counsel, the TCEQ Commissioners support a contested case hearing; and why did the SOAH administrative law judge rule to have the case heard in Victoria against the city's desire to have the hearing in Austin?
Common sense is to revisit the site options and relocate the plant site where it keeps the peace or risk not getting a permit and spending even more money and not have nothing to show for it at the conclusion of this fight.
id be fine with an armed and violent revolution to fight this
it's past time for a good tar and feathering of some elected officials in this town
everybody knows this stuff always rolls down hill, to the folks on that side of the tracks
Sounds reasonable.... Our leaders are not responsible for their actions.
So instead of the city paying for there own legal fees , they plan to cover it with my taxes $ ? too fight with its own citizens ? over a bad location ? Unless i'm miss understanding something ?